1.Does the writer understand the concept of a rhetorical analysis and does the paper demonstrate its application? Why or why not. Give suggestions.
Yes, I could see the images in the images with the “American Flag” photo. Also I could put the photos together to make the bigger picture.
2.What argument / communicative purpose does the paper describe for the photographs it uses. Is it appropriate? Effectively presented? Why or why not. Give suggestions.
The argument purpose is that the first two photos are meant to be together, that they were taken at around the same time and have a continuing story.
3.What is the argument claim put forward for the photograph(s) under analysis in the paper? Is it appropriate? Effectively presented? Why or why not. Give suggestions.
There is no argument claim put forward in the paper.
4.What did you like about how the various visual/rhetorical theorists (Berger/Faigley/Ramage/Blakesly&Brooke/Barthes) were used in the paper? What could be improved about how the paper uses these theorists? What suggestions do you have for the writer? Be as specific as possible by discussing each theorist one at a time and how the paper uses them. Also, give suggestions of theorists that the writer does not use but might be useful in his/her rhetorical analysis.
Very little theorists was used in this paper. I could use more Ramage and Blakesly.
- 1. Does the writer understand the concept of a rhetorical analysis and does the paper demonstrate its application? Why or why not. Give suggestions.
Yes, I could see the images in the images with the “American Flag” photo. Also I could put the photos together to make the bigger picture.- 2. What argument / communicative purpose does the paper describe for the photographs it uses. Is it appropriate? Effectively presented? Why or why not. Give suggestions.
The argument purpose is that the first two photos are meant to be together, that they were taken at around the same time and have a continuing story.- 3. What is the argument claim put forward for the photograph(s) under analysis in the paper? Is it appropriate? Effectively presented? Why or why not. Give suggestions.
There is no argument claim put forward in the paper.- 4. What did you like about how the various visual/rhetorical theorists (Berger/Faigley/Ramage/Blakesly&Brooke/Barthes) were used in the paper? What could be improved about how the paper uses these theorists? What suggestions do you have for the writer? Be as specific as possible by discussing each theorist one at a time and how the paper uses them. Also, give suggestions of theorists that the writer does not use but might be useful in his/her rhetorical analysis.
Very little theorists was used in this paper. I could use more Ramage and Blakesly.